Humility refers to “a desirable personal quality reflecting the willingness to understand the self (identities, strengths, limitations), combined with perspective in the self’s relationships with others” (Nielsen et al., 2010, p. 34). Humility is characterized by a willingness to view oneself accurately; a displayed appreciation of others’ strengths and contributions; and teachability or openness to learning, new opinions, and feedback (Owens & Hekman, 2012; Owens et al., 2013). This definition emphasizes an individual’s character trait of virtue. For academic researchers and management practitioners, it is intriguing to note whether humility in a leader benefits employee creative performance in organizations. Creativity is a function of both individual and contextual characteristics (Shalley et al., 2004). In organizations, leaders are a crucial contextual factor that improves creative performance, as they can facilitate the cognitive processes underlying creative problem solving (Reiter-Palmon & Illies, 2004).

Researchers have examined how leaders influence employee creative performance through variables such as empowering leadership, transformational leadership, or servant leadership (Jaiswal & Dhar, 2017; Moss & Ritossa, 2007; Zhang & Bartol, 2010), and leader humility in this context has been receiving increased scholarly attention, such that there is now a small body of research exploring the effects of leader humility on individual- and team-level creativity. For example, X. Wang et al. (2019) found that leader humility enhances team creativity via the mediator of team creative efficacy. Further, J. Wang et al. (2017) concluded that leader humility is positively related to employee creativity, and perspective taking is an important cognitive processing mechanism underlying this association. Finally, Y. Wang et al. (2018) revealed that humble leader behaviors positively affect employee creativity, and psychological capital mediates this impact. However, still more studies are needed to examine the association between leader humility and employee creative performance, and to explore the underlying mechanisms that link these two constructs (J. Wang et al., 2017).

Researchers have provided convincing evidence that work attitudes, such as thriving at work and job satisfaction, mediate the connection between leadership and employee performance (Ali et al., 2018; Atmojo, 2012). Work engagement involves experiencing a sense of energy, concentration, and enthusiasm in the context of one’s job (Schaufeli et al., 2002, 2006). Previous studies have shown that work engagement is an important antecedent of employee creativity (Liu & Ge, 2020). Thus, the objective of our study was to explore the relationships between leader humility, work engagement, and employee creative performance, and to examine if work engagement mediates the link between leader humility and creative performance.

Previous research has reported that leadership style contributes to the enhancement of employee creativity, as leaders provide clear incentives to motivate their employees (Jaiswal & Dhar, 2017; Moss & Ritossa, 2007; Zhang & Bartol, 2010). Leader humility shapes supportive interactions between leaders and employees, and thus affects employees’ attitudes and behavioral responses (Owens et al., 2013). Owens and Hekman (2012) and Owens et al. (2013) stated that humble leaders admit personal limits and mistakes; believe that failure is necessary for continued success; appreciate employees’ strengths and compliment them on their contributions; and support their employees to absorb new knowledge, obtain new skills, and learn from each other. All these behaviors have been shown to encourage individual creativity (Amabile, 1997; Gupta & Singh, 2015). On the basis of these arguments, we proposed the following hypothesis:
Hypothesis 1: Leader humility will be positively related to employee creative performance.

Work engagement is defined as “a positive, fulfilling, work-related state that is characterized by vigor, dedication, and absorption” (Schaufeli et al., 2002, p. 74). Scholars have identified the positive effect of leaders’ expressed humility on employee attitudes and behavior (Owens et al., 2013). As already described above, humble leaders tend to acknowledge their own limits, spotlight others’ strengths, and encourage leader–member role reversal (Owens & Hekman, 2012; Owens et al., 2013), all of which foster a supportive organizational environment that, in turn, leads to employees’ work engagement (Morris et al., 2005). Humble leaders may create a sense of supportiveness, gain employees’ trust, and encourage them to establish harmonious interpersonal relationships, which then enhances employees’ willingness to engage with their work (Nielsen et al., 2010; Owens et al., 2013, 2015). Work engagement functions as an attitude motivator, giving employees full capability to solve problems and develop creative ideas (Hakanen et al., 2008; Salanova & Schaufeli, 2008). When employees have a high level of work engagement, they exert more effort on creative problem solving (Liu & Ge, 2020). As such, we anticipated that the leader characteristic of humility would affect employees’ attitude motivation, such as their work engagement, and subsequently would inspire employees to enhance their creative performance. Thus, we proposed the following hypothesis:
Hypothesis 2: Work engagement will mediate the relationship between leader humility and employee creative performance.

Method

Participants

The subordinate sample consisted of 143 men (60.3%) and 94 women (39.7%) with a mean age of 32.7 years (SD = 6.05, range = 24–39). Among them, 75.1% held a bachelor’s degree and 24.9% held a master’s degree or higher academic qualification. The leader (supervisor) sample consisted of 35 men (85.4%) and six women (14.6%) with a mean age of 45.7 years (SD = 3.74, range = 39–52). Among them, 14.6% had a bachelor’s degree and 85.4% had a master’s degree or higher academic qualification.

Procedure

Data were collected from people employed at 15 high-tech firms in South China. The chief executive officer of each of these firms helped us to randomly select employees and their direct leaders. All participants were asked to give their informed consent, and the anonymity and confidentiality of responses were assured. First, the survey forms were coded so that subordinates could be matched with their leader. Then, the survey packages were sent separately to 47 leaders and their 293 subordinates via email. After excluding responses with invalid data, we received completed forms from 41 leaders and 237 subordinates, resulting in response rates of 87.2% for leaders and 80.9% for subordinates. We received ethical approval from Henan Polytechnic University before commencing the study.

Measures

The survey items were translated into Chinese through back-translation by two doctoral students who were fluent in English. After discussion with two professors in the field of business administration, a synthesized version was achieved. All focal variables were rated on a 5-point Likert scale ranging from 1 = strongly disagree to 5 = strongly agree.

Leader Humility
Subordinates rated the humility of their supervisor with nine items from Owens et al. (2013). Sample items are “My supervisor is willing to learn from others” and “My supervisor shows appreciation for the unique contributions of others.”

Work Engagement
Subordinates rated their own work engagement with nine items from Schaufeli et al.’s (2006) Utrecht Work Engagement Scale. Sample items include “At my job I feel strong and vigorous,” “My job inspires me,” and “I feel happy when I am working intensely.”

Creative Performance
Supervisors rated their subordinates’ creative performance with four items from Farmer et al. (2003). Sample items include “This employee tries new ideas or methods first” and “This employee generates groundbreaking ideas related to the field.”

Results

Preliminary Analyses

A series of dimension-level confirmatory factor analyses was carried out to examine the discriminant validity of the three latent variables of leader humility, work engagement, and creative performance according to fit assessed by root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA), comparative fit index (CFI), and Tucker–Lewis index (TLI). The results show that the three-factor model, RMSEA = .05, CFI = .98, TLI = .98, was the most suitable and had a significantly better fit to the data than either the two-factor model combining leader humility and work engagement, RMSEA = .15, CFI = .72, TLI = .70, or the one-factor model combining all factors, RMSEA = .19, CFI = .64, TLI = .61, thus supporting the discriminant validity of the measures.

Table 1 shows the means, standard deviations, and bivariate correlations for all study variables. In terms of internal consistency reliability, Cronbach’s alphas were above the accepted minimum of .70, ranging from .83 to .92.

Hypothesis Testing

Hypotheses were tested using structural equation modeling. Figure 1 shows that leader humility was positively related to both employee creative performance and work engagement, and that employee work engagement was positively related to employee creative performance. The indirect effect of leader humility on employee creative performance through employee work engagement was .14, 95% confidence interval [.04, .24]. Thus, Hypotheses 1 and 2 were supported.

Discussion

The research goal was to investigate how leader humility influences employee creative performance. Studies on the relationship between leader humility and employee creative performance are still rare. We have filled this gap by introducing work engagement as a mediator of this relationship. The results provide evidence for both direct and indirect associations between leader humility and employee creative performance; work engagement partially mediated the leader humility–creative performance relationship.

Theoretical and Managerial Implications

First, the results in our study show that the effect of leader humility on employee performance enhanced creativity. This is consistent with the findings of J. Wang et al. (2017) and Y. Wang et al. (2018), who reported that leader humility was positively related to employee creativity. Chinese people are characteristically cautious and conservative, which conflicts with creativity (Fei, 1992). However, the leader is a crucial contextual factor in a workplace, and good leadership can stimulate employee creative behavior (Jaiswal & Dhar 2017; Moss & Ritossa, 2007; Zhang & Bartol, 2010).

Second, in response to the call by J. Wang et al. (2017) for identification of new mechanisms in the relationship of leader humility and employee creative performance, in our study we found a new mechanism: Work engagement mediated this link. Extending the findings of Owens et al. (2013) and Qian et al. (2020), who investigated the underlying psychological mechanism of the connection between leader humility and employee attitudes and behavior, in this research we explored a crucial psychological mechanism, finding that the facilitating effect of leader humility on employee creative performance was channeled via employees’ work engagement. Specifically, leader humility enhanced followers’ vigor, dedication, and absorption, which are three components of their work engagement, resulting in greater creative performance. The demonstration of the mediating effect of work engagement suggests that engagement is of substantial importance, and this enriches the literature on the leader humility–creative performance relationship.

From a practical point of view, our findings in this study have implications for leaders and organizations. To enhance their effectiveness, leaders should display humility in their daily work to facilitate their followers’ creative performance, such as admitting their own weaknesses and mistakes, spotlighting followers’ strengths and contributions, and being open-minded about new ideas and feedback. Further, a culture of humility should be developed in organizations, and leadership training programs should be provided to encourage leaders to practice humility. Additionally, our findings highlight that leader humility positively affected work engagement. Hence, leaders should implement managerial interventions to encourage employees to feel engaged in their work.

Limitations and Directions for Future Research

This research has several limitations that highlight directions for future research. First, because of the cross-sectional design of the data collection, we could not ascertain cause–effect relationships. In the future, longitudinal studies could be conducted or controlled laboratory experiments could be performed to provide more evidence of causal effects. Second, in this research we explored work engagement as a mechanism in the leader humility–creative performance link. Other mechanisms may exist. Kahn (1990) pointed out that employees can become physically, emotionally, and cognitively engaged at work, influenced by psychological conditions like meaningfulness, safety, and availability. Future studies could investigate the effect of leader humility on creative performance through these psychological variables. Third, in Chinese organizations the prevalent leadership style is paternalistic, which includes elements such as benevolence, morality, and authoritarianism, and there is an interaction between these three elements and employee responses (Cheng et al., 2004). Future researchers could examine the interactive effects of humility and other leader characteristics on employee creative performance.

Ali, M., Lei, S., Jie, Z. S., & Rahman, M. A. (2018). Empowering leadership and employee performance: A mediating role of thriving at work. International Journal of Asian Business and Information Management, 9(2), Article 1.
https://doi.org/10.4018/IJABIM.2018040101

Amabile, T. M. (1997). Motivating creativity in organizations: On doing what you love and loving what you do. California Management Review, 40(1), 39–58.
https://doi.org/10.2307/41165921

Atmojo, M. (2012). The influence of transformational leadership on job satisfaction, organizational commitment, and employee performance. International Research Journal of Business Studies, 5(2), 113–128.
https://doi.org/10.21632/irjbs.5.2.113-128

Cheng, B.-S., Chou, L.-F., Wu, T.-Y., Huang, M.-P., & Farh, J.-L. (2004). Paternalistic leadership and subordinate responses: Establishing a leadership model in Chinese organizations. Asian Journal of Social Psychology, 7(1), 89–117.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-839x.2004.00137.x

Farmer, S. M., Tierney, P., & Kung-Mcintyre, K. (2003). Employee creativity in Taiwan: An application of role identity theory. Academy of Management Journal, 46(5), 618–630.
https://doi.org/10.5465/30040653

Fei, X. (1992). From the soil: The foundations of Chinese society. University of California Press.
https://doi.org/10.1525/9780520912489

Gupta, V., & Singh, S. (2015). Leadership and creative performance behaviors in R&D laboratories: Examining the mediating role of justice perceptions. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 22(1), 21–36.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1548051813517002

Hakanen, J. J., Perhoniemi, R., & Toppinen-Tanner, S. (2008). Positive gain spirals at work: From job resources to work engagement, personal initiative and work-unit innovativeness. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 73(1), 78–91.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2008.01.003

Jaiswal, N. K., & Dhar, R. L. (2017). The influence of servant leadership, trust in leader and thriving on employee creativity. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 38(1), 2–21.
https://doi.org/10.1108/LODJ-02-2015-0017

Kahn, W. A. (1990). Psychological conditions of personal engagement and disengagement at work. Academy of Management Journal, 33(4), 692–724.
https://doi.org/10.5465/256287

Liu, K., & Ge, Y. (2020). How psychological safety influences employee creativity in China: Work engagement as a mediator. Social Behavior and Personality: An international journal, 48(8), Article e9211.
https://doi.org/10.2224/sbp.9211

Morris, J. A., Brotheridge, C. M., & Urbanski, J. C. (2005). Bringing humility to leadership: Antecedents and consequences of leader humility. Human Relations, 58(10), 1323–1350.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0018726705059929

Moss, S. A., & Ritossa, D. A. (2007). The impact of goal orientation on the association between leadership style and follower performance, creativity and work attitudes. Leadership, 3(4), 433–456.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1742715007082966

Nielsen, R., Marrone, J. A., & Slay, H. S. (2010). A new look at humility: Exploring the humility concept and its role in socialized charismatic leadership. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 17(1), 33–43.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1548051809350892

Owens, B. P., & Hekman, D. R. (2012). Modeling how to grow: An inductive examination of humble leader behaviors, contingencies, and outcomes. Academy of Management Journal, 55(4), 787–818.
https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2010.0441

Owens, B. P., Johnson, M. D., & Mitchell, T. R. (2013). Expressed humility in organizations: Implications for performance, teams, and leadership. Organization Science, 24(5), 1517–1538.
https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.1120.0795

Owens, B. P., Wallace, A. S., & Waldman, D. A. (2015). Leader narcissism and follower outcomes: The counterbalancing effect of leader humility. Journal of Applied Psychology, 100(4), 1203–1213.
https://doi.org/10.1037/a0038698

Qian, X., Zhang, M., & Jiang, Q. (2020). Leader humility, and subordinates’ organizational citizenship behavior and withdrawal behavior: Exploring the mediating mechanisms of subordinates’ psychological capital. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 17(7), Article 2544.
https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17072544

Reiter-Palmon, R., & Illies, J. J. (2004). Leadership and creativity: Understanding leadership from a creative problem-solving perspective. The Leadership Quarterly, 15(1), 55–77.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2003.12.005

Salanova, M., & Schaufeli, W. B. (2008). A cross-national study of work engagement as a mediator between job resources and proactive behavior. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 19(1), 116–131.
https://doi.org/10.1080/09585190701763982

Schaufeli, W. B., Bakker, A. B., & Salanova, M. (2006). The measurement of work engagement with a short questionnaire: A cross-national study. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 66(4), 701–716.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0013164405282471

Schaufeli, W. B., Salanova, M., González-Romá, V., & Bakker, A. B. (2002). The measurement of engagement and burnout: A two sample confirmatory factor analytic approach. Journal of Happiness Studies, 3, 71–92.
https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1015630930326

Shalley, C. E., Zhou, J., & Oldham, G. R. (2004). The effects of personal and contextual characteristics on creativity: Where should we go from here? Journal of Management, 30(6), 933–958.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jm.2004.06.007

Wang, J., Zhang, Z., & Jia, M. (2017). Understanding how leader humility enhances employee creativity: The roles of perspective taking and cognitive reappraisal. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 53(1), 5–31.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0021886316678907

Wang, X., Li, H., & Yin, H. (2019). Antecedents and consequences of creativity in teams: When and how leader humility promotes performance via team creativity. The Journal of Creative Behavior. Advance online publication.
https://doi.org/10.1002/jocb.410

Wang, Y., Liu, J., & Zhu, Y. (2018). How does humble leadership promote follower creativity? The roles of psychological capital and growth need strength. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 39(4), 507–521.
https://doi.org/10.1108/lodj-03-2017-0069

Zhang, X., & Bartol, K. M. (2010). Linking empowering leadership and employee creativity: The influence of psychological empowerment, intrinsic motivation, and creative process engagement. Academy of Management Journal, 53(1), 107–128.
https://doi.org/10.5465/AMJ.2010.48037118

This research was supported by the Fundamental Research Funds for the Henan Province Universities (SKYJ2021-02) and Funding of Innovation Team of Philosophy and Social Sciences of Henan Polytechnic University (CXTD2021-2).

Jinli Xue, Research Center for Energy Economics, School of Business Administration, Henan Polytechnic University, 2001 Century Avenue, Jiaozuo High-Tech Zone, Jiaozuo, Henan 454000, People’s Republic of China. Email: [email protected]